Samuel Griffiths

Election Poster 1861

TO THE ELECTORS
OF THE
BOROUGH OF WOLVERHAMPTON

If, but a week ago, we had been told that the death of one of the most
distinguished and successful amongst the men whom we cite as a national
honour, could in any way affect our connection with a native of this
Borough, who has become a municipal and commercial opprobrium, we should
have considered the intimation as a paradox the most absurd. It is, however,
true that the event, so sudden and startling to the nation, occasions the
indignity to us of an address from Mr. Samuel Griffiths, soliciting us to
place him in the House of Commons.

In this document, he appears to base his pretensions mainly on the facts
that he is a native of the Borough, and has for years been largely engaged
in the great staple trade of the district, and on a suggestion heretofore
made by "influential parties," that a gentleman acquainted with the Iron
trade should be found willing to undertake the office he now solicits.
These, I presume, are the pretensions on which he relies, because the other
characteristics which he mentions, of being a liberal in politics, a free
trader, and an adherent to the foreign policy of the present government, are
those of probably ninety-nine hundredths of the community. Besides, he (as
stated in his address) has merely " watched with interest the development
[sic]" of Free Trade, whilst hundreds of candidates may be had who
strenuously assisted in the great work, and we are now honoured by an offer
of the services of a gentleman who was one of its pioneers!

Taking then, the main pretensions in the order in which they are named, I
proceed to examine their validity. First, Mr. Griffiths is (he says) a native
of the Borough. But, it is generally deemed injudicious to select an
inhabitant of a Borough to be its representative; unless he be conspicuous
amongst the leaders there for ability and excellence, such a selection
occasions jealousies and disturbs private friendships. This I mention as a
general principle. I do not think it applicable in the case of Mr.
Griffiths; for the jealousies indicated would result from equality, and I
reject the uncharitable surmise that there are others in the Borough
degraded to his level.

Secondly, Mr. Griffiths has (he says) " for years been largely engaged in
the staple trade of the district." He has also been a chemist and a dealer
in grease and oil, and he has failed hitherto in every commercial business
which he has undertaken. Failed utterly! the dividends under his triple
insolvencies having been so mean as in many instances to deter creditors
from encountering the trifling cost and trouble of proving their debts! He
has therefore been "largely engaged" at the expense of his creditors. His
last failure was recent, and the wreck total. After every failure he became
more "largely engaged" than before; but from the ruins of the last he has
risen not merely self-renovated like a phoenix, but with the potent power of
renovating others, for he has emerged not only to return to the "staple
trade," and become a purchaser
of costly works, but also to establish a Bank!

Now, I ask you whether this mode of being "largely engaged in the staple
trade of the district" is a fitting preparation for a parliamentary
representative, or a reason for your confiding to Mr. Griffiths the sacred
trust which he solicits? And, anticipating your negative answer, I need not
say more on the third special point of his address, than that the
"influential parties" therein alluded to could not possibly have referred to
Mr. Samuel Griffiths, when they remarked "that a gentleman acquainted with
the iron trade should be found, willing to undertake the office he
solicits."

Mr. Griffiths will not during his canvass voluntarily advert to his
failures, and if he be invited to give information, I dare say he will speak
of them as "misfortunes." For the sake of argument then, join him, by
anticipation, in that lenient view. It is, however, but the other horn of an
inextricable dilemma; for it is clear that a man who has so mismanaged his
own businesses as to become three times insolvent, is utterly unfit to
manage the business of others. Than this, no axiom can be more obvious.

I am afraid, however, that the lenient view above suggested cannot be
adopted. For, bear in mind the minor incidents in the career of Mr.
Griffiths. Recur to his action against a Fire Insurance Company, the
defence, the compromise! his prosecution and imprisonment for infractions of
the excise laws; recollect how "largely engaged" he was in the bubble
speculations of 1845; his quarrels and recriminations in our Town Council;
his prosecution for personating a voter at a parliamentary election; his
prosecution at Petty Sessions for an assault ! Were these misfortunes, or
did they arise out of faults? If faults, can you, in considering his
character, separate them from his Insolvencies ? Must you not judge this man
by the aggregate circumstances which give him the most unenviable notoriety
in the Borough which he seeks to desecrate?

Suppose he were to go into the House of Commons. Do you think he would
there meet with any reception except that of derision? If you do, you
outrage experience as well as common sense.

You could not prevent the man asking for your suffrages. That was an act
of his own impudent volition. At present, therefore you are insulted, but
not disgraced. Every vote however, which may be recorded in his favour, will
be a stigma on the Borough. Every such vote will be an injustice to the
non-electors, and will furnish an argument for the opponents of an extended
suffrage; for it will be said, and truly, that if in a ten pound franchise,
electors can be cajoled by this hydra of insolvency, prosecutions, and
abortive projects, the time has not yet arrived for lowering the electoral
qualification.